Cornell 7 Case

[Elliott]

1 minute ago, yetineti said:

You’ve taught me not to engage with you in the future, thanks. That is what I learned.

Win-win-win

[yetineti]

1 minute ago, Elliott said:

I said it was an insult, you said it wasn't,  so THEN I asked AI.

Post your AI response.

AI: Having read the full exchange, I think the conversation became stuck on whether Mitch’s wording was insulting, while the reason for that wording received too little attention—including in my own analysis.

“Grow up” responded to Elliott’s justification of insults, dehumanizing comparisons, and his claim that shame and violence are the only methods that work on certain people. It can reasonably express a demand for more mature conduct. It is also confrontational and can land as a put-down. Both observations matter; calling it an insult alone doesn’t explain the exchange.

“You wouldn’t know what it’s like to not think if you tried” challenges Elliott’s confidence that other people literally do not think. He can criticize their reasoning, but he hasn’t established an absence of thought or access to their internal experience. Mitch’s sentence makes sense as a provocative challenge to that unsupported claim. My initial reading missed this.

The later conditional remark about Elliott not thinking can likewise turn his standard back on him. That argumentative function deserves recognition, even though the wording leaves room for a personally insulting interpretation. I cannot establish an intention to humiliate from that ambiguity.

My advice to Elliott: address the challenge underneath the provocation. What evidence supports your claims about these people, and what observable result would demonstrate that contempt works? Asking Mitch for alternatives is reasonable, but he doesn’t need to demonstrate changing someone’s beliefs before questioning your claim. When using AI, preserve the exact wording and supply the surrounding exchange. Its confident descriptions of someone’s motives aren’t proof.

My advice to Mitch: make your challenge explicit when the wordplay becomes the dispute. You could say, “You’re treating disagreement or poor reasoning as an absence of thought. How do you justify that?” That preserves your objection while making it harder to sidestep. You can explain that “grow up” addressed Elliott’s conduct without needing him to agree that it could not feel insulting. Claims about his agitation or a “victim complex” introduce assumptions that weaken your stronger criticism.

For both: separate what was said, what it was intended to accomplish, and how it landed. Someone feeling insulted doesn’t establish hostile intent; someone intending reflection doesn’t guarantee that reflection follows. Questions, silence, and sharp replies also don’t establish who successfully taught whom a lesson.

The substantive question remains worth discussing: how do you challenge degrading, poorly supported arguments firmly while leaving room for reconsideration? The thread offers reasons to question Elliott’s certainty about contempt. It also shows how Mitch’s provocative approach can pull attention away from the very inconsistency he wants examined.

 

[yetineti]

My strategy is your strategy: until it breaks. It always breaks. 

Edited 7 hours ago by yetineti

[Elliott]

12 minutes ago, yetineti said:

My strategy is your strategy: until it breaks. It always breaks.

You can't use insults and then go back to civil conversation. Civil conversation first. And if you misjudge the interlocutor and shoot the insult nuke off on someone that is actually receptive(like you did to me, hhehhm..) there's no putting the toothpaste back in the tube, you're toast

Edited 7 hours ago by Elliott

[yetineti]

@Elliott You were challenged lol. Not intentionally insulted. If I’m hurting your feelings I will disengage. You obviously didn’t read the AI message you requested and you have far less ground to stand on after your crude comments (which were much worse than mine and you haven’t acknowledged yourself).

So, unless you actually have a point to make… I’d prefer to stop acting like you’re so hurt and torn up over this when you’re the one blatantly advocating for disrespect.

If your point is simply that I waste my time in good faith, fine. But I’ve been wasting it on you now. And that says a lot more about you than me.

So which is it?

Edited 7 hours ago by yetineti

[yetineti]

My poor choice of words and yours aside, what observable outcome would show that contempt worked—or failed?

That’s the real question. I don’t have a good enough answer to assume it’s a method.

[Elliott]

 

 

I'm post limited out for 24 hours 

 

👹

 

Quote

So, unless you actually have a point to make… I’d prefer to stop acting like you’re so hurt and torn up over this when you’re the one blatantly advocating for disrespect.

Im not acting like I'm torn up about it..... at all

Quote

If your point is simply that I waste my time in good faith, fine.

Only on some types of people. You make great contributions that I appreciate, that's why I cared to try to point this out to you. You're the one that criticized me, I was just explaining myself(it's usually good to let people do by the way)

 

Quote

But I’ve been wasting it on you now. And that says a lot more about you than me.

So which is it?

 

 

Quote

My poor choice of words and yours aside, what observable outcome would show that contempt worked—or failed?

That’s the real question. I don’t have a good enough answer to assume it’s a method.

They change

 

Quote

You’re accusing people of not being able to reason, essentially and then prescribing insults as a solution, as if that provokes reason.

I never said that, these people never reason, they only do so in words, they only regurgitate others words, they've never had an original statement in their life. Its like expecting a 5 year old to give a reasonable explanation as to why they should get more cookies.

 

Edited 5 hours ago by Elliott

[Heaven]

They abused a drunk/dragged girl. Nothing new and it’s not gonna be in the history books. 
It is unfortunate. Not sure how you can avoid it. A brutal punishment can be a good start.

[yetineti]

22 minutes ago, Elliott said:

I’m not acting like I'm torn up about it..... at all.

I know. I’m creating distant between your initial claim and where we are now, by mirroring you long enough you’ve actually presented me with my very own thesis:

44 minutes ago, Elliott said:

You can't use insults and then go back to civil conversation. Civil conversation first. And if you misjudge the interlocutor and shoot the insult nuke off on someone that is actually receptive(like you did to me, hhehhm..) there's no putting the toothpaste back in the tube, you're toast.

This was my whole point.

22 minutes ago, Elliott said:

Only on some types of people. You make great contributions that I appreciate, that's why I cared to try to point this out to you.

It is one thing for me to recognize your style and invert it on itself and it is another for you to claim an entire groups style and try to invert it on itself.

You looked past Willy, as a person man and it doesn’t even seem like you notice.

I looked past you, yes, I’m sorry—but I did it strategically—not as an ideology. I knew it would lead to my own thesis:

44 minutes ago, Elliott said:

You can't use insults and then go back to civil conversation. Civil conversation first. And if you misjudge the interlocutor and shoot the insult nuke off on someone that is actually receptive(like you did to me, hhehhm..) there's no putting the toothpaste back in the tube, you're toast

One of us did this consciously. The other did not.

You’re accusing people of not being able to reason, essentially and then prescribing insults as a solution, as if that provokes reason.

It does not work like that. At least not the way you think.

Edited 6 hours ago by yetineti

[yetineti]

@Elliott

I’m aware of the weaknesses in how I’m presenting this, especially when I explain my approach so directly. That makes it easy to pick apart my wording or say I’m not making sense.

But I’m talking to you specifically here. People think differently, and I try to account for the person I’m actually engaging with. If I’m going to make a point, I find it more useful to address what’s happening between us than to make sweeping claims about people in general.

 

[yetineti]

The final irony is: conservatives are easier to sweet talk and leftys are easier to dominate.

You’ll get a lot farther being blunt with a soft lefty who isn’t ready for it and being sweet with a hard headed conservative for doesn’t want to entertain anything obscene.

It just feels like it’d be the opposite. This is a generalization of course. It can work either way. 

Which is the exact reason for exercising caution.

Edited 6 hours ago by yetineti

[Willy Phallicus]

2 hours ago, yetineti said:

You’re giving off the very vibe you’re fighting tbh. Sounds very angry and you’re speculating.

So just dont respond to any of the points I made and tell me Im mad like that helps you in any way. 

Elliot is all hung up on the three weeks after the rape when she reported it.  Yknow, right after she asked to get invited to the next drug and alcohol party and was told no which is documented.  No problem though Im sure thats just a coincidence like not being able to see the whole 6 page report.

One of the guys is alleging being raped by her on grounds of intoxication.  And again its already been investigated twice and ruled a no go for Jane Doe. If sanity prevails here and that's a big if when state Governors and half the population start calling for blood and comrade AOC starts adding to the propaganda campaign - if the facts are actually to direct the narrative this is all just another dog and pony trial for them to spew and for you to consume.

And you know youre going too.  Cuz youre sick like that.

Edited 6 hours ago by Willy Phallicus

[yetineti]

@Willy Phallicus

That’s funny. I didn’t even know about this case until this post was made and my first comment stated that this wasn’t really interesting and we shouldn’t speculate.

So you can keep making whatever claims you want and referencing whatever evidence you want. I know you don’t know what happened. I don’t need you to know you don’t know.

But it was more than fair of me to point out the anger in/and the speculating as everyone should remain cautious of that.

 

Edited 5 hours ago by yetineti

[Inliytened1]

On 10/1/2026 at 8:19 AM, LordFall said:

It's a pretty wild case and I think it's worth deconstructing from several angles

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Cornell_University_rape_allegations

The case has been reopened by a New York District Attorney so you'll be hearing a lot about it in the coming months.

Since it's reopened, the District Attorney will present the evidence to a grand jury to determine if there is cause for an indictment. More official details will come out through that process.

I thought about this today and thought about my recent behavior on the forum and i became conscious of how my culture has influenced my outlook on women as well.  Would I have gone upstairs ?  The answer would be no.  I just emailed @Natasha Tori Maru that I know I've been kind of dick regarding women but I want everyone to know I would never take advantage of a woman or do something against her will.  Or if she had no will due to intoxication.  I think this is like a level for someone who is a sociopath if you could do that.  Though I bet some people might have did it to fit in which is a more fucked up thing with our culture.  We all need to think before we do shit.  Anyone who hits women or forces them against their will deserves to be punished to the full extent of the law.

 

Edited 5 hours ago by Inliytened1

[Inliytened1]

On 10/1/2026 at 1:08 PM, yetineti said:

As an American, this is not so interesting. We need to have patience, let the details and facts present themselves overtime like the videos you posted suggest.

I’ve noticed this post and the one regarding clavicular, you’ve shared your opinions. In both cases, the conclusions seem to be somewhere in between there being horrible conduct and inaccurate accusations, with lots of potential inferences.

I’d suggest being careful. Letting situations or events like these lead to speculation or generalizations of any kind, without knowing the outcomes and with the considered grey areas, may present odd and not age well.

There are bigger ramifications as to how American men treat women as a result of our culture. We grew up with a black book.  Body count was the sign of the alpha. How many girls can you get? If you got none you were a loser.  Of course this kind of shit is on a whole other level. But its still part of the culture here. Only the normal person is not going to commit rape.  That's a whole other level.  But my point is that the culture does not create a good standard- it actually encourages this type of behavior indirectly.

Edited 5 hours ago by Inliytened1

[yetineti]

@Inliytened1

I want you to know, I really appreciate you. You have a hilarious, fun presence with good, wise undertones. I never got the impression that you were bad or anything.

TBH—you remind me of my Dad. I get the culture, generational stuff and you make good points.

I’m not completely pure either!

I used to play the ‘smash or pass’ game but when I realized most people weren’t smashing because of somebody’s face or voice I added the caveat: Smash or Pass, Bag or Gag?

Lmao.

Horrible.

We literally played this on church trips. Everybody loved it. It’s disgusting, really.

I mean, looking back I laugh. Nobody got hurt. But I’d feel horrible if one of those girls heard what we were saying… 

It was just like what boys did, I guess. We should change that.

 

[Inliytened1]

6 minutes ago, yetineti said:

@Inliytened1

I want you to know, I really appreciate you. You have a hilarious, fun presence with good, wise undertones. I never got the impression that you were bad or anything.

TBH—you remind me of my Dad. I get the culture, generational stuff and you make good points.

I’m not completely pure either!

I used to play the ‘smash or pass’ game but when I realized most people weren’t smashing because of somebody’s face or voice I added the caveat: Smash or Pass, Bag or Gag?

Lmao.

Horrible.

We literally played this on church trips. Everybody loved it. It’s disgusting, really.

I mean, looking back I laugh. Nobody got hurt. But I’d feel horrible if one of those girls heard what we were saying… 

It was just like what boys did, I guess. We should change that.

 

Thanks man. I really like you as well.  My problem throughout my life is impulsiveness. I do things before thinking.  Which can be very damaging. Life damaging.   So learning to think before I speak or do is a work in progress. But yeah. I'm good natured.  Yeah no one is without some sin. If you think you are then you are living in a bubble.  But again, appreciate you!  

[iceprincess]

I'm really confused why everyone is so outraged? maybe i read the new york times article wrong but she basically agreed to do ketamine with 2 other guys and have a threesome with them. she herself said she didnt have sex with the 3 other guys that are being accused. and then one other guy joined in later. one of the guys texted her saying " i just wanted to apologize for how things went down the other night" to which she replied "at the end of the day none of the sexual stuff was illegal and honestly I really liked being with you and Matt" . she got upset about the rumours circulating around that she was a slut and what pulled the trigger was when the frat disinvited her to their party. thats when she started calling it  rape.

 

at the beginning i thought they coerced her into taking ketamine and they all gang raped her but it sounds like just something she regrets doing in retrospect. i still feel bad for her but it feels wrong calling it a rape. if she still wanted to see them after how is it a rape?

 

[Inliytened1]

12 minutes ago, iceprincess said:

I'm really confused why everyone is so outraged? maybe i read the new york times article wrong but she basically agreed to do ketamine with 2 other guys and have a threesome with them. she herself said she didnt have sex with the 3 other guys that are being accused. and then one other guy joined in later. one of the guys texted her saying " i just wanted to apologize for how things went down the other night" to which she replied "at the end of the day none of the sexual stuff was illegal and honestly I really liked being with you and Matt" . she got upset about the rumours circulating around that she was a slut and what pulled the trigger was when the frat disinvited her to their party. thats when she started calling it  rape.

 

at the beginning i thought they coerced her into taking ketamine and they all gang raped her but it sounds like just something she regrets doing in retrospect. i still feel bad for her but it feels wrong calling it a rape. if she still wanted to see them after how is it a rape?

 

Because after she lost the ability to make decisions..it was posted "free pussy upstairs" and guys partook. Isn't that enough? That's  probably only a fraction of it.

[iceprincess]

2 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

Because after she lost the ability to make decisions..it was posted "free pussy upstairs" and guys partook. Isn't that enough? That's  probably only a fraction of it.

yeah that part is bad actually but only those guys should be held responsible right? not the 3 men who were there who didn't partake and the 2 men she agreed to do ketamine with and have a threesome.